Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:17:24PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > Does anything currently produce A const * const?  It's probably
> > legal...
> 
> I haven't seen any "A const * const".  I guess I would have to accommodate
> that if somebody saw one.  I'm not inclined to put it in at this time.

Agree.

> Here's what I've got (2002-04-04, native i686-pc-linux-gnu):
> 
>   const A * const
>     gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
>     gcc 2.96-rh -gdwarf-2
>     gcc 3.0.4 -gdwarf-2
>     gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gdwarf-2
>     gcc HEAD -gdwarf-2

Legitimate.

>   A *
>     gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
>     gcc 2.96-rh -gstabs+
>     gcc 3.0.4 -gstabs+

XFAIL.

>   const class {...} * const
>     gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gstabs+
>     gcc HEAD -gstabs+

Broken.

> "const class {...} * const" looks like a gdb bug to me.  Again I will
> look in the generated code.  That will likely be a FAIL with a bug
> report (soon to be a KFAIL).

There is a PR for this, though it isn't obvious.  It's... uhm....
gdb/277.  I even describe the solution.  I'm too busy to do it this
week, but hopefully soon.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer